Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
Peter and Pentecost ... did Peter miss the most important truth concerning Christ in his sermon and get it wrong by forgetting to mention that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, and that baptism should be in the name of the Holy Trinity ?
Acts 2,22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2,38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. -
Is it wise to let our lack of understanding determine what we believe? It's like saying "I can't understand Einstein, therefore what he says is false".
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Not quite so plain and simple .... you ignore the meaning of "became" and treat it as equal to "was/is", you do not understand "word" to plainly mean "word", etc etc ...Sure I do. The word "Word" is clearly being used as a name/title in the passage and is not talking about literal speaking words. That is very clear. Context...
Sorry, on what do you base this assumption that "Word" is a name/title rather than having the meaning of "Word" ??
Verse 2 when Word becomes the word He. This is not hard Wolfgang.
@Wolfgang said:
Here's a passage from Eph 1 which rather clearly indicates that Jesus is NOT God.
Eph 1:2-3
Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:V.2 makes a clear distinction between (a) God our Father and (b) the Lord Jesus Christ
V.3 then makes mention of the same God, and stating that He is both "God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ.That doesn't prove that He is not God at all.
Of course it does ... because it states that God is SOMEONE OTHER than Jesus !!
Then how do you harmonize that with John 1? Either the Bible is wrong in one of the passages, or you have misinterpreted.
This same truth, that God is not only the Father but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is also found in 1Co 11:31 and 1Pe 1:3.
2Co 11,31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
1Pet 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,Once again, that doesn't prove your point at all. It strengthens mine. Three parts of the Trinity.
How so? Where is there a mention of the Trinity? Where in Scripture would the Trinity be mentioned and/or defined ?
Also, do you not know that most proponents of the Trinity do NOT even think in terms of "parts of the Trinity" ??Correct. Three Persons of the Trinity, but now you are arguing semantics.
@Wolfgang said:
I've been a professional translator (English <> German) for decades (now retired), I have a degree in theology, I do not belong to any group or denominational church since the late 1980ies.
Not sure how that qualifies your for Biblical translation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Sure I do. The word "Word" is clearly being used as a name/title in the passage and is not talking about literal speaking words. That is very clear. Context...Sorry, on what do you base this assumption that "Word" is a name/title rather than having the meaning of "Word" ??
Verse 2 when Word becomes the word He. This is not hard Wolfgang.
Careful ... this is only the case in the English language and those translations that follow a particular dogma. It's not the case in German, and actually should not be the case in English either, because the regular English pronoun used for "Word" is "IT" (not HE or SHE).
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
V.2 makes a clear distinction between (a) God our Father and (b) the Lord Jesus Christ
V.3 then makes mention of the same God, and stating that He is both "God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ.That doesn't prove that He is not God at all.
Of course it does ... because it states that God is SOMEONE OTHER than Jesus !!
Then how do you harmonize that with John 1? Either the Bible is wrong in one of the passages, or you have misinterpreted.
Neither the Bible is wrong nor one of the passages ... the interpretation which interprets what you claim INTO Joh 1 causes what to you seems wrong.
@davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, that doesn't prove your point at all. It strengthens mine. Three parts of the Trinity.
How so? Where is there a mention of the Trinity? Where in Scripture would the Trinity be mentioned and/or defined ?
Also, do you not know that most proponents of the Trinity do NOT even think in terms of "parts of the Trinity" ??Correct. Three Persons of the Trinity, but now you are arguing semantics.
You were talking about PART of the Trinity ... the one who is arguing semantics is You. Furthermore, you are arguing about the Trinity ... I am interested in Scripture, not in Trinity dogma and Trinity doctrines or Trinity semantics.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
I've been a professional translator (English <> German) for decades (now retired), I have a degree in theology, I do not belong to any group or denominational church since the late 1980ies.Not sure how that qualifies your for Biblical translation.
It qualifies me to whatever degree my expertise touches on Bible translation issues ...
For an example => see above matter about some translators into English disregarding the rather simple principle of pronouns in target language must be adjusted to the noun used in the target language. In favor of supporting a certain dogma, those translators violate that simple basic translation rule, else they would have used the pronoun "it" in connection with the word "word". By using the pronoun "he", they mislead the reader into thinking that the word "word" is a proper name/title, for which there is absolutely NO proof ... just look up the regular uses of the word "logos/word" in the rest of the NT scriptures.
-
@Dave_L said:
Is it wise to let our lack of understanding determine what we believe? It's like saying "I can't understand Einstein, therefore what he says is false".Hmn ... so then why do those who believe in the Trinity dogma claim that this dogma actually is a mystery that cannot really be understood?
See, I rather go by what I can read understand ... the rather simple and plain statements made in Scripture which state that Jesus was a human being and not God.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Is it wise to let our lack of understanding determine what we believe? It's like saying "I can't understand Einstein, therefore what he says is false".Hmn ... so then why do those who believe in the Trinity dogma claim that this dogma actually is a mystery that cannot really be understood?
See, I rather go by what I can read understand ... the rather simple and plain statements made in Scripture which state that Jesus was a human being and not God.
I think the problem is in a person's inability to approach scripture with child like simplicity. As we grow older we become too analytical with the bible. If it doesn't make sense we adjust it so that it does. We want to walk by sight and not by faith. But if I see Jesus as God in scripture, that settles it. If I see the Trinity in scripture, that also settles it. And I see both clearly in scripture.
-
@Dave_L said:
I think the problem is in a person's inability to approach scripture with child like simplicity. As we grow older we become too analytical with the bible. If it doesn't make sense we adjust it so that it does.When I was a child. I was told that "Father Christmas" came during the night before Christmas by a certain rather strange and seemingly impossible passage way into the house to deposit gifts he had brought for us. I believed it, "childlike" ...
A little later on, however, it appeared to me a little too strange and too impossible and I employed my God given abilities of reason and logic to analyze the story I was told and thereby detected that it actually was a lie and what had been claimed by the story tellers had been false.Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think the problem is in a person's inability to approach scripture with child like simplicity. As we grow older we become too analytical with the bible. If it doesn't make sense we adjust it so that it does.When I was a child. I was told that "Father Christmas" came during the night before Christmas by a certain rather strange and seemingly impossible passage way into the house to deposit gifts he had brought for us. I believed it, "childlike" ...
A little later on, however, it appeared to me a little too strange and too impossible and I employed my God given abilities of reason and logic to analyze the story I was told and thereby detected that it actually was a lie and what had been claimed by the story tellers had been false.Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
-
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
“Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3).I'm curious about the intention behind your citing the verses from 1 John 4, C.M. Is it your view that one or more posters in this thread refuse to "acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"? For what it's worth, I know of no such posters, but am open to your viewpoint to the contrary.
No! What gave you that impression? CM
It was not obvious to me why you added the 1 John 4 verse to this thread, so I asked about your intentions. Given the content of the verse and its reference to the "antichrist," I inferred that among the possible reasons for your inclusion of it was that you believed said reference applied to one or more posters in these threads.
@C_M_ said:
Bro. Wolfgang,
I answered Bill's question.If you want to know why I shared the text, it's simple: "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God..." (1 John 4:2-3). Is this not what you and others have been saying, repeatedly, in this thread, and elsewhere, when it comes to Jesus? If you or whoever is not saying this, the rest the text, speaks for itself. CM
I don't think any of us deny that Jesus came in the flesh.... It's a joy to dance on common ground!
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
I did not suggest that in the slightest and it is disgusting for you to even suggest that I did.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Can a woman give birth to a baby that is something other than a human being?
My answer would be, No!Exactly. When the Word which was God, was made flesh which was Jesus, that flesh was formed as a human baby in the womb of Mary. Jesus was human.
Does the principle of "after its kind" for pro-creation (cp the various verses in Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25) apply not only to plants and animals but also to humans?
My answer would be, Yes. This truth is the basis why a woman can not conceive by any other seed than a seed of the kind "homo sapiens"/human kind, and then give birth to a "dual kind living being".Right. What happened with Jesus being born of Mary, a virgin, was quite the miracle!
Jesus was not two people. He was not a "duel kind of living being." He was not a demi-god. Jesus was God come in flesh to offer His body a living sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Considering the birth of Jesus, my conclusion from these basic truths -- (a) women can only give birth to humans, and (b) pro-creation always is according to "after its kind" -- is that the child born of Mary was a human being and NOT a God-man, man-God or some other "mystical kind living being".
Well said. Jesus was none of those things you mention (as I understand them--which I don't very much). Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus described in the ways you mention above. Yet He is clearly described as God who came in flesh.
There are elements of that I don't overstand, but I stumble at trying to grasp not fundamentally understanding that. I have seen Muslims who have more reason than anyone to reject such teaching, grasp the matter fully.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
I did not suggest that in the slightest and it is disgusting for you to even suggest that I did.
Considering the context of your rhetorical question, what did you mean to suggest?
-
Please clarify something ... God was formed into flesh (that is, changed from Spirit to flesh)? or does "word became flesh" describe that God's word about a human person to come as Messiah become reality in the conception and birth of Jesus?
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
Does the principle of "after its kind" for pro-creation (cp the various verses in Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25) apply not only to plants and animals but also to humans?
My answer would be, Yes. This truth is the basis why a woman can not conceive by any other seed than a seed of the kind "homo sapiens"/human kind, and then give birth to a "dual kind living being".Right. What happened with Jesus being born of Mary, a virgin, was quite the miracle!
The conception is said in the Bible to have been a miracle in that Mary became pregnant with a human baby by a miracle worked by God and without the involvement of a human male as father.
Jesus was not two people. He was not a "duel kind of living being." He was not a demi-god. Jesus was God come in flesh to offer His body a living sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Please clarify, how is "God come in flesh" different from what others would call "demi-God", "God-man", etc ?
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
Considering the birth of Jesus, my conclusion from these basic truths -- (a) women can only give birth to humans, and (b) pro-creation always is according to "after its kind" -- is that the child born of Mary was a human being and NOT a God-man, man-God or some other "mystical kind living being".Well said. Jesus was none of those things you mention (as I understand them--which I don't very much). Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus described in the ways you mention above. Yet He is clearly described as God who came in flesh.
Where in the Bible is Jesus described as "God who came in flesh" ? I can not think of any scripture which would indicate that God would change from being Spirit (cp Jesus' very own words in Joh 4:24) to being flesh?
There are elements of that I don't overstand, but I stumble at trying to grasp not fundamentally understanding that. I have seen Muslims who have more reason than anyone to reject such teaching, grasp the matter fully.
"grasp the matter fully" ? So they understand what even theologically learned scholars declare to be a mystery that really is even beyond their ability to understand ?
I wonder, how stupid I must have become in the course of time ... to have been one who for many years in my childhood believed that dogma as I was told by priest and preacher in catechism class, and then grew to regard it as a lie when I began reading the Bible myself ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
Please clarify something ... God was formed into flesh (that is, changed from Spirit to flesh)?The Bible says "Was made flesh." I don't think I would say "formed in flesh" but rather "put on flesh, or "became flesh." I don't know how much it matters exactly.
or does "word became flesh" describe that God's word about a human person to come as Messiah become reality in the conception and birth of Jesus?
That is a reasonable question, but John tells us precisely that "The Word was God." So that pretty much settles that. Besides from what we know from the rest of the Bible, Jesus was God and his ability to be Messiah was only because He was God. No ordinary or extraordinary man, however perfect could make atonement for us. (I do not accept that Jesus was demi-god).
The conception is said in the Bible to have been a miracle in that Mary became pregnant with a human baby by a miracle worked by God and without the involvement of a human male as father.
Yes. We agree on that completely.
Jesus was not two people. He was not a "duel kind of living being." He was not a demi-god. Jesus was God come in flesh to offer His body a living sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Please clarify, how is "God come in flesh" different from what others would call "demi-God", "God-man", etc ?
I don't know exactly what those terms mean to you, so I don't know how to say. BUt let me try.
I think a demi-god is a being with partial divine status. Either a god with limited power or a mortal with elevated power. Neither describes Jesus.
I think a god-man could describe Jesus if we mean an incarnation of a god in human form. In general the term to me implies the Hindu notion of a holy man. That isn't Jesus either.
I won't quibble about such terms. My point is that Jesus was fully God who put on flesh (if I can say it that way) and came in the form of a man. We have discussed this at extreme length already so I hope it is OK to abbreviate here.
Where in the Bible is Jesus described as "God who came in flesh" ? I can not think of any scripture which would indicate that God would change from being Spirit (cp Jesus' very own words in Joh 4:24) to being flesh?
We have offered many to you. I don't have any more that I can think of. I will offer this anyway:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
"grasp the matter fully" ? So they understand what even theologically learned scholars declare to be a mystery that really is even beyond their ability to understand ?
Some things are mysteries, but not everything. I think we can basically understand that God came to earth in the form of a man. Even the most primitive religions have men or gods becoming fish and birds and people. They seem to grasp it alright. I am sure we can grasp it too.
I wonder, how stupid I must have become in the course of time ... to have been one who for many years in my childhood believed that dogma as I was told by priest and preacher in catechism class, and then grew to regard it as a lie when I began reading the Bible myself ...
Wolfgang, I doubt that you are stupid at all. My impression is that you are a fine gentlemen with a bright mind. I do think you stumbled on something many people stumble over. Why? because you are being honest. You are trying to be authentic in your faith and what you believe. You are not inclined to be duped by prevailing opinion of the day. I for one respect that about you. Like all of us here, you are on a journey. Iron sharpens iron. We try to help each other see as we walk by faith. I think I am right. So do you. God bless you Brother. I know it matters to us both to get it right and I am glad we have each other.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
I did not suggest that in the slightest and it is disgusting for you to even suggest that I did.
Considering the context of your rhetorical question, what did you mean to suggest?
I meant that Jesus endorsed a child-like faith.
-
@Dave_L said:
So based on your translator skills as opposed to the pros, why do you trust your opinions over theirs?Would you trust Barth D. Ehrman's opinion over your own on the meaning of the NT and the identity of Jesus? He has very clearly mastered the Biblical languages, he holds a Master, and a PhD and is an expert/professional textual critic.
Although, I have only had six semesters of Koine Greek and two years of classical Attic Greek at the university level (and hold a B.A. in Biblical text) I would still trust my opinion over that of Barth D. Ehrman because I think he starts off with a bias. However, I think he sometimes poses good questions and food for thought.
I think it is just the same as when Christians reject some the translations or renderings of the quote-unquote Messianic passages found in Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible/OT.
Oh, and some trust Robert Young's translation of the Bible even though he did not have any degrees in Biblical languages. He taught himself classical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek!
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
So based on your translator skills as opposed to the pros, why do you trust your opinions over theirs?Would you trust Barth D. Ehrman's opinion over your own on the meaning of the NT and the identity of Jesus? He has very clearly mastered the Biblical languages, he holds a Master, and a PhD and is an expert/professional textual critic.
Although, I have only had six semesters of Koine Greek and two years of classical Attic Greek at the university level (and hold a B.A. in Biblical text) I would still trust my opinion over that of Barth D. Ehrman because I think he starts off with a bias. However, I think he sometimes poses good questions and food for thought.
I think it is just the same as when Christians reject some the translations or renderings of the quote-unquote Messianic passages found in Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible/OT.
Oh, and some trust Robert Young's translation of the Bible even though he did not have any degrees in Biblical languages. He taught himself classical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek!
I think a scholar's group affiliation is as important as their degree when it comes to defining and translating words. So I normally consider both when making a call. But we need to consider the greatest heretics in history were often the greatest original language scholars too.
-
@Dave_L said:
. But we need to consider the greatest heretics in history were often the greatest original language scholars too.If true then I would say then that there is a great need for more (not all and not less) Christians to study, learn, and master the original languages.
Personally, I have found my reading ability in Greek and Classical Hebrew to be of great value in dealing with questions I get from what seems to be predominantly European atheists (I keep on bumping into) regarding the so-called contradictions in Bible. Of course, Logic, history, and theology are also important when answering some of the questions.
-
I agree, but it still comes down to whether or not you pull your own teeth because you are handy with tools. Or if you go to the dentist instead.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
I did not suggest that in the slightest and it is disgusting for you to even suggest that I did.
Considering the context of your rhetorical question, what did you mean to suggest?
I meant that Jesus endorsed a child-like faith.
And why would you ask if I would also be slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child? What in my earlier comment to Dave_L's post would cause such a question?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Seems like you are among those who never experienced such ... perhaps you are still expecting "Father Christmas" to bring you gifts that rather impossible way ? You still clearly see the empty stockings hanging from the mantle at the fireplace in the evening, and the next morning you take a look and they have been filled by "Father Christmas"
Wow, so are you also slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child?
Not at all ... but now I am greatly wondering about your level of understanding of Jesus' words concerning the faith of a child? You seem to suggest that Christ thought it appropriate to believe in lies ??
I did not suggest that in the slightest and it is disgusting for you to even suggest that I did.
Considering the context of your rhetorical question, what did you mean to suggest?
I meant that Jesus endorsed a child-like faith.
And why would you ask if I would also be slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child? What in my earlier comment to Dave_L's post would cause such a question?
You started on about analytics, logic, and reasoning. All of which you aren't using with regard to Jesus' Deity but tout it as if that is the answer. You are flat wrong on this Wolfgang and I fear for your soul since you do not know the Savior.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You started on about analytics, logic, and reasoning. All of which you aren't using with regard to Jesus' Deity but tout it as if that is the answer. You are flat wrong on this Wolfgang and I fear for your soul since you do not know the Savior.?? You are not answering the simple questions I asked as to why you came up with it in view of me answering Dave_L to what he pointed at by giving and illustration of the story regarding "Father Christmas" I was told and believed as a child and then dismissed later on as being a lie ...
To this illustration, you then asked if I was slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child ...Why would you come up with such a question in this context?? What made you think I was perhaps doing what you mentioned?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You started on about analytics, logic, and reasoning. All of which you aren't using with regard to Jesus' Deity but tout it as if that is the answer. You are flat wrong on this Wolfgang and I fear for your soul since you do not know the Savior.?? You are not answering the simple questions I asked as to why you came up with it in view of me answering Dave_L to what he pointed at by giving and illustration of the story regarding "Father Christmas" I was told and believed as a child and then dismissed later on as being a lie ...
To this illustration, you then asked if I was slamming Christ's view of the faith of a child ...Why would you come up with such a question in this context?? What made you think I was perhaps doing what you mentioned?
You make it sound as if a child cannot discern things and will believe anything.
-
@Dave_L said:
I agree, but it still comes down to whether or not you pull your own teeth because you are handy with tools. Or if you go to the dentist instead.If I were to apply your analogy to my life it might sound like this: When I first moved to rural Japan I had two options learn Japanese language or hire a full-time professional translator/interpreter to follow me around all day every day for years. Which option sounds reasonable?
For, me the study of languages (Biblical or modern) is not for the sole purpose of making a translation, but for the purpose of communication be that verbal or written. Do, I make my own full translation of the Bible or suggest that Christian should? No, of course not! Can one profit from learning/mastering languages without the need for translating them? Yes, they can enjoy reading and be immersed in the text just as a non-scholar of Japanese or any other modern language can profit the ability to communicate and interact with people in other countries (or even in their own country).
-
Being good with tools does not make you a dentist any more than speaking a language makes you a professional linguist.
-
@Dave_L said:
Being good with tools does not make you a dentist any more than speaking a language makes you a professional linguist.Therefore, an expat shouldn't learn the language of the country they have chosen to live in? And, they should instead hire a full-time interpreter/translator or just remain monolingual and live in a bubble? Actually, for whatever reason, a lot of expats here (usually from English speaking countries) that live in the bigger cities tend to remain monolingual and often need to ask for help to do basic things.
It is good that men like Robert Young (as well as a number of other Bible translators who do not have degrees in Biblical languages) did not take your advice otherwise they would not have accomplished anything.
But, no the point was never about becoming a professional(paid) linguist. Anyone who is diligence and puts the effort in can gain fluency in another language and even those that can't still benefit and learn from better tools.
-
Think of John Gresham Machen and William D. Mounce Christians who are known for their respective famous introductory Greek grammars. Neither of which have degrees in Biblical languages! Mounce has an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies with a minor in Greek but his master's degree and Ph.D. are not related to the field of linguistics nor Biblical languages.
-
My wife's dad didn't like dentists. He pulled several of his own teeth.
-
@Mitchell said:
Think of John Gresham Machen and William D. Mounce Christians who are known for their respective famous introductory Greek grammars. Neither of which have degrees in Biblical languages! Mounce has an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies with a minor in Greek but his master's degree and Ph.D. are not related to the field of linguistics nor Biblical languages.Thanks, Mitchell, for the background information on two well-known authors' work many rely upon for so many years.
You have a point about us using our minds and talents in understanding and share God's word. If more of us would do as the two mentioned above how much more enriched we would all be? Self-taught is alright as long as it is affirmed in a community of learners, reason and biblically based. How many of us have the discipline, time and "stick-to-it-ness" to learn the way you and others have done over the years?
Notwithstanding, it has been said that scholars are overrated and excessively paid. They only know a lot about a little. On the other hand, a self-taught man, knows a little, about a lot. Whom would you like to have in your corner of life?
The challenge is long and steep for many of us, who-would-be, self-taught men, but the task can be reached. That, or we have to buy a lot more books, get a loan and go back to school. Sobering thoughts for a light moment. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
